Your video, Cleopatra’s 3RD Egg From 33 BCE On Antiques Roadshow, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Allowing people fly so close and risk an accidental smashing with the Pyramids seem not a worthwhile risk for Eygpt's department of antiquity me. Regulated drones I understand, but not these Wingsuit flybys. I mean, if I'm its head honcho, I'd tell these people to f'-off somewhere else, LOL.

The first thing that comes to mind is how antiquated this video is going to be when there are no more cylinder engines because we only need electric motors.

In 2035 selling new gas-powered automobiles will no longer be allowed.

Assault weapon bans. Effectively making illegal the most common rifle in the country (ar15) - even though it's statistically tiny in terms of gun killings.
(~450 people killed per year with all forms of rifle. Only some of that is ar15. That's the ~same amount of people as what die yearly from falling out of bed.)

Suppressor bans. Illegalizing an item that has been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning DIY non-commercial firearms. Illegalizing firearms that have been statistically as good as nonexistent in firearm crimes.

Banning Private Sales (aka gunshow loophole). Effectively banning transfers between family and friends. Even though nearly all illegal arms are acquired by straw purchase at conventional stores by girlfriends.
And commercial sellers at gun shows have to do background checks anyways - this is much ado about old geezers trading collectible wild west / ww2 / antique shit.

Nearly all people are killed by pistols. Nobody is calling for a pistol ban. It makes things like an AWB look like a disingenuous effort - because you can pass all sorts of non-pistol-banning gun control laws and there will be no effect on gun death stats. Meaning you can just make more and more stuff illegal forever so long as you save what really matters (pistols) for last.

Between city, county, state, federal, existing gun laws are fat like an encyclopedia. Most people, unless they are 'gun folk', don't even realize the ways you can go to jail. Put a vertical grip in a pistol and posted it to instagram? Enjoy your time with the ATF. 10 years and $100k, assuming you're lax enough to not hire a lawyer to knock it down a bit. Literally volumes of ways to go to jail for shit you wouldn't even imagine would matter.

Many things people complain about aren't even a thing. Like complaining about buying guns online (you can't, not without an FFL involved), or crazy people buying guns (they can't, unless they've yet to be caught doing crazy shit).

Too many laws as it is. Erase a bunch first.

-scheherazade

Congratulations! Your video, ANTIQUES ROADSHOW | PBS Rolex Oyster Cosmograph, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 420 Badge!

Your video, ANTIQUES ROADSHOW | PBS Rolex Oyster Cosmograph, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 432 Badge!

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

That is terrible, I hadn't heard about that. What did they do, use an antiquated sodomy law to convict him?

Edit: NM, they used a loophole in the consent laws with a minor. I think he might have still walked, but he also had sex with a drunk 17 year old who claimed rape. Still, kind of a shit show. Thankfully he is out now.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

That you should probably buy a new one because it's ultimately cheaper unless it's an antique grandfather clock passed down through your family for 157 years but taking it to a clockmaker, you find out Great-grandpa Steven did you no favours because to refurbish it would cost more than your truck?

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one...

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.

Fry is almost certainly correct that modern ideas of the middle ages are overstating things. Certainly scholars of the time had sources available describing the earth as a sphere.

I was told the confusion stemmed from Isidore of Seville who wrote a book called the Etymologies, in Latin, to summarise the Greek books from classical antiquity. This was becoming important at a time when Greek was studied much less, and the originals were therefore inaccessible to most scholars. Anyway, in one passage of his Etymologies he described the shape of the earth as being round, like a wheel.

This probably didn't cause nearly as much confusion as people think.

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't cry, I get mad.

Your fucking antiquated electoral system is much like you, borderline retarded and would do better in the 18th century.

I understand that Fuckface VonClownstick won, but even you can't possibly regard 0.1% as a landslide, but thanks for making my point for me.

for what seems like the millionth time, the problem is not your candidates (even though they suck).

The problem is your antiquated and frankly, broken electoral process.

Get rid of utter nonsense like the electoral college, throw out FPP, and you might stand a small chance of reclaiming your democracy.

I'm not sure if this is anti-zionist, anti-semitic, anti-SJW, anti-islam, antiquated, antipodean or just anti-everything.

What's with the esjew and esjudaism stuff? I'd love to know what point you were making by it - was it just something you found darkly funny, or do you think there's a link between SJWs and jews?

Also an Islamist in the traditional sense ('someone who promotes Islamic politics') shouldn't share much of their ideology with an 'SJW'. Depends on what group or particular muslim you're talking about, but an 'Islamist' and SJW should disagree on homosexuality, women's rights and capital punishment to name a few. I'd have thought strictly traditional muslims would be diametrically opposed to SJWs.